New Test For Neurological Variation

davidbanner99@ wrote:So far as genetics is concerned, surely it"s a trade-off? Nicola Tesla etc etc

David, while you're being nerdy I think you would benefit from reading any of Richard Dawkins' books, but specifically The Selfish Gene. Tesla's children, if he'd had any, certainly wouldn't have inherited his acquired knowledge and would have had the same chance as anyone else of being born learning-disabled.

I believe social awkwardness to be largely a matter of parenting. You can point to a family of four and say three of them are okay but only this one is permanently belligerent, and I'll show you the family scapegoat. I'm thinking of my own family of origin as well as a relative's offspring.

I looked at your very long questionnaire thingy and though I might have a go, but as I scrolled through it and came to the key (that I presume I was supposed to carry out myself) I stopped. (That's a major 'AGREE' to question 5.) I may print it and try it on the husband, though.

Candid wrote: Richard Dawkins' books, but specifically The Selfish Gene.

Love that book and I know you have recommended it quite often.

Recently I've been reading some books that critic or point to some flaws in his work I find interesting. The main flaw is how he frames it as a competition of genes at the individual versus the group level.

It makes sense. Dawkins comes out with a solid theory and now it is the job of science to test his theory, showing where he erred. It seems that group cooperation versus competition is much more prevalent, i.e. genes are not as selfish as Dawkins portrayed.

Dawkins did not "err", he has been misquoted and misinterpreted. Nowhere has he said that certain genes make people selfish, that selfishness is a good thing, or that competition is either better or worse than co-operation.

His chief contention is that genes are mindless replicators, and that the primary occupation of all living things is staying alive. I don't see how anyone can misunderstand that or consider it an error... and yet, they do.

Candid wrote:Dawkins did not "err"

Sure he did. I enjoy and respect his work, but like any other researcher, his work is not infallible. When he published 'The Selfish Gene' in 1976 it isn't as if it was the definitive answer to how genes work. He erred. He was wrong.

Even Dawkins has recognized some of his errors and updated and/or clarified his claims in the 40th-anniversary edition.

he has been misquoted and misinterpreted.

Of course. When you reach such a wide audience and make such an impact that will happen. It doesn't mean he didn't err. It doesn't mean he got everything correct.

Nowhere has he said that certain genes make people selfish, that selfishness is a good thing, or that competition is either better or worse than co-operation.

I didn't claim that he said any of the above.

His chief contention is that genes are mindless replicators, and that the primary occupation of all living things is staying alive. I don't see how anyone can misunderstand that or consider it an error... and yet, they do.

I don't think his colleagues misunderstand. I don't believe that I misunderstand. I think there is a professional, evidence-based disagreement on the contention that the primary occupation of all living things is staying alive. There is a growing body of evidence in support of groups of genes that are interdependent rather than genes competing at the individual level.

It is individual vs group selection. To this day Dawkins is an "individualist". I don't think I misunderstand that. Based on what I have read to date, I think he is wrong.

Candid wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:So far as genetics is concerned, surely it"s a trade-off? Nicola Tesla etc etc

David, while you're being nerdy I think you would benefit from reading any of Richard Dawkins' books, but specifically The Selfish Gene. Tesla's children, if he'd had any, certainly wouldn't have inherited his acquired knowledge and would have had the same chance as anyone else of being born learning-disabled.

I believe social awkwardness to be largely a matter of parenting. You can point to a family of four and say three of them are okay but only this one is permanently belligerent, and I'll show you the family scapegoat. I'm thinking of my own family of origin as well as a relative's offspring.

I looked at your very long questionnaire thingy and though I might have a go, but as I scrolled through it and came to the key (that I presume I was supposed to carry out myself) I stopped. (That's a major 'AGREE' to question 5.) I may print it and try it on the husband, though.

I'm currently reading Grunya Suhareva's interpretation of genetics. She supposes schizophrenia is recessive and schizoid dominant. Although this is her referral to German psychiatrists. I hit upon something very important in Suhareva's essay. Later I may share it. She was a very clever woman and an expert in doctor's medicine as well as psychology. Also genetics. She wrote extensively on Schizophrenia but as of yet I'm not sure what's meant by destruction of the personality.

I had the idea of merging my website into radio engineering and psychology together. This is because these days I apply one to the other. I had very productive couple of days in which I was finally able to solve some error in a 1940s maths calculation. There are always two motives: 1 = Study radio and 2= Test Asperger's theories. This was namely that Asperger claimed a few people with Schizoid Disorder find it easier to solve puzzles their own way. It's not so much about raw intellect but obsessive drive and tendency to draw on deviated thought processing. I did maybe 7 hours of maths over two days.

Candid wrote:Dawkins did not "err", he has been misquoted and misinterpreted. Nowhere has he said that certain genes make people selfish, that selfishness is a good thing, or that competition is either better or worse than co-operation.

His chief contention is that genes are mindless replicators, and that the primary occupation of all living things is staying alive. I don't see how anyone can misunderstand that or consider it an error... and yet, they do.

You might laugh but Christien and Barbara O Brien have put forward some intriguing theories. Christien O Brien made an alternative translation of Genesis. He printed the Hebrew, the Sumerian and the reason for his translations. The word for "God" in Hebrew is grammatically plural and comes from Sumerian. It can accurately be translated as "gods". Likewise, O Brien translates "higher and lower lands" as an alternative to "heavens and earth". O Brien wrote a little known book that has elements of the Davinci Code. This is "The Genius Of The Few". Quite expensive to buy. Having read the Bible many years ago I likewise concluded God may have been neighbouring astronauts and that, in fact, civilization here started this way. Another interesting book The Spaceships Of Ezekiel written by a leading NASA scientist.n

Many of my questions are now being resolved. My reading of very old psychology texts now made me aware of something that took place in the 1920s.
It seems leading psychologists clashed over Kretchsmer's revolutionary book on somatotypes and the definition of Schizoid Disorder. The divide centred upon failure to totally distinguish between Schizoid as a personality type and Schizoid as a clinical pathology.
I can explain this pretty simply:
Kretchsmer claimed there exists a nordic somatotype called "Asthenic". Such body type tends to exhibit long limbs, tall and thin physique and a predisposition to schizhoid reaction. That is, Schizophrenia and Schizoid Disorder are more highly represented in this somatotype.
One cause of controversy was that a few psychologists warned against confusing the personality type of schizoid reaction to actual Schizoid Pathology.
This is what happened to Asperger Syndrome. To be fair to Lorna Wing, she did stress all her patients were being treated in hospital with comorbid conditions, apart from Asperger Syndrome. That is, her patients all required ongoing therapy.
However, in the 2000s, Asperger Syndrome had come to represent pretty much a geeky personality type. Someone who was married, employed in the tech industry and exhibiting not so great social skills. Yet, Asperger's patients it's clear had far more severe symptoms than just a personality type. It went much deeper. That is more severe and a lot closer to Schizophrenia.
As I said, it seems history repeated itself. From my reading so far I see no distinction between clinical Schizoid Avoidance Disorder and Hans Aspergers Autistic Psychopathy - that later was coined Asperger Syndrome. Yes, I did find Schizoid Disorder had been grouped into types but all in all it's one and the same.
I would basically reiterate what a few concerned German psychologists were stating in the 1920s. The somatotype and asthenic type that is disposed to show schizoid traits in personality is one reality. However, actual Schizoid Pathology is pretty close in many ways to Schizophrenia.

Personally I would rate John Lennon very definitely as the Asthenic somatotype. Also as Schizoid personality type as opposed to clinical pathology. John performed very poorly at school and, in later life, was known to be very distant and inward. His big song Strawberry Fields Forever shares how "nobody I think is in my tree (waveband), I mean it must be high or low." Mcartney stated more often than not, he never quite understood John's thoughts as if he was in his own space. Lennon was also a big sleeper and not physically active. However, Lennon still retained great communication skills and maybe the most witty of The Beatles. Brian Epstein was from day one captivated by Lennon's presence on stage. So, the theory runs Lennon "bordered" a schizoid process that had the potential to be triggered. Yet he remained socially functional. Funny thing too is Lennon had that typical schizoid trait of causing offence. His comments on Christianity essentially ended The Beatles being a touring band due to death threats. He also was the most disliked Beatle in the sense of enemies, including Elvis. I maintain though that had Lennon suffered clinical Schizoid Pathology he'd have been too unstable to have led The Beatles. That being said, a fair few musicians have battled psychological disorders. Brian Wilson especially during the 1970s.

davidbanner99@ wrote: I see no distinction between clinical Schizoid Avoidance Disorder and Hans Aspergers Autistic Psychopathy - that later was coined Asperger Syndrome. Yes, I did find Schizoid Disorder had been grouped into types but all in all it's one and the same.

So based on what you have read you currently have concluded Schizoid = Aspergers.

Okay. I hope that is useful for you.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote: I see no distinction between clinical Schizoid Avoidance Disorder and Hans Aspergers Autistic Psychopathy - that later was coined Asperger Syndrome. Yes, I did find Schizoid Disorder had been grouped into types but all in all it's one and the same.

So based on what you have read you currently have concluded Schizoid = Aspergers.

Okay. I hope that is useful for you.

It's pretty significant, yes. My conclusions before I read Grunya Efemova's essays seemed to have been the same. That's flattering. Suhareva was stressing we need to distinguish personality types from clinical conditions. Where it gets tougher is all the data she cites on connection between Schizoid Disorder and Schizophrenia. She states a huge number of Schizophrenics showed signs of Schizoid Disorder during childhood. Some families showed a history of both conditions.
My interest here is partly selfish. Reading Efemova's patient descriptions it was very much the same for me. Slowness, blindness to emotions, withdrawel and very different information processing. For me it made classroom tuition pretty hopeless. Of course, knowledge makes a massive difference. One major bit if advice I give to control mental anxiety is to redirect all negative energy to a productive channel. Doing complex maths will focus concentration away from your anxiety and serve as a controlled outlet. Today as ever I must have done 4 hours maths. I combine it with hard cardiovascular exercise 3 times a week.

davidbanner99@ wrote:It's pretty significant, yes.

Why is it significant?

It doesn't seem like it makes a difference in your math ability or that it influences your cardiovascular health.

I'm still not clear on what your conclusion that Schizoid = Aspergers does for you?

My current guess is that you hold a belief that people stereotype those with Aspergers as having [X hereditary traits] which results in {Y abilities]. This doesn't make you feel good. I'm not sure why.

The solution you have found is to research original works on schizophrenia to convince yourself that Schizoid = Aspergers. Does this confirm in your mind that stereotypes X and Y are incorrect? And this makes you feel better?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:It's pretty significant, yes.

Why is it significant?

It doesn't seem like it makes a difference in your math ability or that it influences your cardiovascular health.

I'm still not clear on what your conclusion that Schizoid = Aspergers does for you?

My current guess is that you hold a belief that people stereotype those with Aspergers as having [X hereditary traits] which results in {Y abilities]. This doesn't make you feel good. I'm not sure why.

The solution you have found is to research original works on schizophrenia to convince yourself that Schizoid = Aspergers. Does this confirm in your mind that stereotypes X and Y are incorrect? And this makes you feel better?

I came to see Asperger's research and whole approach was misunderstood and distorted. This came about by being on forums at the height of the neurodiversity movement. Modern interpretation of Asperger in my view is distorted. It would be far less use to those who have that condition. So it now turns out this is what happened with Schizoid Disorder. I quote a 1925 text from German to Russian:
"Как и всегда бывает с понятием недостаточно определенным и нерезко отграниченным в употреблении термина "шизоид" зашли слишком далеко. Появился целый ряд новых терминов с неясным содержанием ("Schizophil", "Schizoaffin", "Sсhizoman" и др.). И, как всегда бывает, широкое употребление термина повело к утрате его смысла. "
"As often is the case with a conception that is indefinite and uncategorised, the use of the term "Schizoid"was over-extended. A whole range of new terms appeared and the content was not clear: Schizophil", "Schizoaffin", "Sсhizoman. And as always occurs, the wider application of the term led to the loss of its meaning. "

This is exactly the case with Asperger. Such as substitution of motor impairement for "dyspraxia" Makes no sense if we already were aware Schizoid Disorder is made up of connected symptoms of which motor impairement is one.
I see no real framework in modern diagnosis in this case. Too much fragmentation, over-complication and loss of definition.

To add, as I was typing this a wild fox came right up to me. Not shy of me at all. I had no food to give him but guess he was looking for food. I tried to keep him off the main roads as foxes may get hit by cars.

davidbanner99@ wrote:I came to see Asperger's research and whole approach was misunderstood and distorted.

I get that. I'm asking the question, "So what?"

How is your view of Aspergers (the understood and non-distorted view) applied?

Does it help you with your math? No. Does it help you with your cardio? No. Does it help you get a job? No. Does it help you bake a cake? No.

Does it help you feel better about yourself? I don't know.

That's what I'm asking. In your opinion, what is the value, what is the benefit you receive by using your time to shift your view on what Aspergers is or is not?